Coal-Mining CEO Calls Tesla A Fraud – Elon Musk Fires Back (w/video)

Elon Musk


Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, went on the Tesla attack on CNBC’s Squawk Box. He called Elon Musk and company, a fraud. He said:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk

“Tesla is a fraud, he (Tesla CEO Musk we assume) has gotten $2 billion from the taxpayer,” and “has not made a penny yet in cash flow.”

“You could close every coal-fired plant in the United States today and you would not affect the temperature of the Earth at all.”

Not surprisingly, Elon Musk retorted. Musk shared the blasphemous video on Twitter. He explained that Tesla receives much less government susbsidy than the coal industry.

Musk wrote in reply: “Real fraud going on is denial of climate science. How about we both go to zero (subsidies)?”

Murray’s bottom line argument was that the government should be supporting coal in much the same way it supports wind and solar sources. In 2013, the government supported electricity production from coal with about a billion dollars. This amounts to six percent of the government’s overall support toward electricity production. However, of the $15 billion in total support, 72 percent went to wind and solar. Murray, who believes that it will take monumental strides to make coal clean burning, argued:

“Just as the government is supporting through the people’s taxes windmills and solar panels, they need to support the clean coal technology. … We need a level playing field.”

Musk’s “both go to zero” comment would indeed level the playing field, but for some reason, we don’t think the coal industry will accept Musk’s challenge.

Source: CNBC

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "Coal-Mining CEO Calls Tesla A Fraud – Elon Musk Fires Back (w/video)"

newest oldest most voted

The coal industry is under attack and it is a good thing. Murray is an idiot. Coal needs to end as an energy source and those employed by the coal industry need to seek other employment. They are desperate and frantic at this point, justifiably.
Coal sucks. It is a dirty fuel that destroys our environment. LET IT GO!! Find jobs in sustainable energy production…

That Coal CEO is really dealing with the nothing that he left behind expect wreaked mountain tops and acid rained kileld forests

Here is the plan of how we rid the Earth of Fossil Fuels and CEOs with no vision:

CEO = “Chief Environmental Opposer”

Yeah. I was about to say. I don’t expect him to know that Tesla *borrowed* money from the government, and then *paid it back*, but to call them a fraud on TV out of such ignorance is a pretty stupid thing to do.

And while the statement about how shutting down all the coal powerplants in America wouldn’t actually change anything about climate change… that’s technically true. And it will continue to be true for at least another 50 years, because climate changes slowly, or we’d already be baking under the CO2 we’ve already pumped into the atmosphere. But the attitude he expresses “oh, well that won’t do anything, keep doing things the old way!” is stupid. What he really means of course, is “keep sending me money!”

How can you say shutting down American coal wouldn’t “actually change anything”, “technically”? I don’t cut Murray’s comments any slack. Further, not you, but I wouldn’t say taking subsidies to zero “levels the playing field”. Carbon has no price, despite perhaps most of us accepting its value is negative. Take wind (PTC) and solar (ITC), and coal’s “billion” away, and all you’ll have is free belching of CO2.

I don’t like “lets run at the wall, faster” arguments. Stopping CO2 in the US electric sector would stop ~2Gt of man’s ~35Gt of annual emissions. We can’t really hide under “wouldn’t actually change anything”, because it would, and it’s getting easier and easier to “actually” do.

This guy killed 6 miners by unsafe mining conditions he dismissed and is a heavy donor to the Republicans…is he biased? You bet! He sees his empire sinking in his own pollution as fossil fuels are replaced by clean energy.

Yes, FFE1, it really is that simple. YOu are right. Let coal die.

He’s not an idiot. Coal Guy intends to make as much easy money this way as he can, and then when he’s bled it dry he will shift his booty to something else and put his pet Congressmen to work defending that.

Cheap fracked natural gas has detroyed the coal industry.

Clean coal.. that’s an oxymoron.

Murray this so called CEO is a “HUGE MORON” that’s the reason he uses f00Lish Oxymoronic statements…What a G00F & this guys is a company Head??? Very hard to Believe, THE WAY HE CARELESSLY SHOOTS OFF HIS MOUTH … ..Can’t Tesla file a law Suite for these False. stupid & non existent accusations? THIS GUY KNOWS “NOTHING” , “Only Special Interest”!!

It comes with dry water!

We’ve already put a ton of money into clean coal and haven’t got much in the way of a return. Sequestration isn’t working. The best think I can think of to do with all that pollution is to use solar to condense the CO2, put it in containers and send it to mars to rebuild the atmosphere there!

You have to mine and burn twice the coal to get the same unit of usable energy.

Someone should tell that Coal CEO the one thing that spelled his company’s doom was the Tesla Power Wall.

Why should I dig hundreds of tons of dirty cancer causing shoot out of the ground to power my house. When I can put a row of glass like panels on the roof of my house to collect something that hits my roof anyway and a battery in my garage to power the house?


Actually, what doomed coal was cheap natural gas produced by methods also environmentally destructive, which caused a price collapse that forces gas hustlers to drill more and more holes to stay ahead of their debts. But apparently he would offend too many of his fellow oligarchs and the free-market priesthood if he mentioned all that evidence of sociopathic behavior under the infallible marketplace. He won’t do the slightest thing to actually outlaw the activities really responsible for his failure because he’s demanding more bailouts instead.

No, they didn’t do it, you did. They have 9 special tax rules from the time the think about fracking till they’ve depleted the resource.

It wouldn’t be profitable without your help. That’s the joke. They point the finger at solar, but Fracking Repubs Killed the Coal Repubs, because all pollution energy gets Tremendous tax brakes.

I’ll bet there’s no chance a coal plant could exist anywhere near Mr. Murrays house. The big shots put unhealthy trash like that in the neighborhoods of very poor to lower middle class neighborhoods. But heh, I’m sure to someone like him, it’s a two-fer. You get to shorten the lives of the people less valued than your bigshot self and destroy their property value at the same time.

I think you fail to understand the mindset of the capitalist. Every day, people like himself sacrifice their health for money. Why did you think he’s bald and, apparently, has Parkinson’s?

You, my friend, have truely understood the fundamental root of the problem. Like any addict, someone enslaved to an obsession as poisenous as money will disregard any damage done to him/herself or anyone or anything else.

“Why did you think he’s bald and, apparently, has Parkinson’s?”

Well, if you must look for some reason other than genetics, then greed and the stress which accompanies being a corporate CEO, with all the daily dishonesty that entails, would appear to be contributing causes.

Very true ! 0ld School Ignorance. I had an old Nazi Client that used to Go Irate & lose control when anyone made a heath concerning statement about Asbestos …

Is this guy Republican? Is a genius

And as usual, the corporate overlords of the Republican Party are in sync with the politicians and candidates they control as we hear Trump, Pence, and the other Repubs blabber in a similar way to MurraY about the “War on Coal”.

These statements are about as disingenuous as Trump standing at the debate and saying with a straight face that he has “the utmost respect for women”!

Panic is setting in on fossil fuel industry as strongman Trump campaign implodes. Hey Democrats don’t forget to vote for Hillary or she will lose.

Vote like your future depends on it.

Because it does.


Right but do you really like Hillary?
She feels like cod liver oil. Drink it it’s good for you!
This election is a pest or cholera choice.

Poor sad coal companies. Left in the coal dust heap of history. Good riddance. Couldn’t happen to a better industry.

Let’s not be too harsh. The coal industry built the western civilization. Yes it has its problems, and they are serious, but we just need to change to the new and not be condemning of the people in the old industry. They have families and mortgages just like everyone else.
BTW, I am in the solar industry and I am firmly committed to PV and wind but the transition is just a logical transition.

Robert Murray looks like he is very Healthy and smart. NOT. I wonder if he knows that over 2,000 peer reviewed accredited scientists have shown the opposite of what he is saying?
I’m sure he knows but can’t admit it because of his job.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” — Upton Sinclair

Murray is blind to the fact that it is natural gas that is killing his industry, not Tesla.

Yup. Reminds me of the U.S. clear-cutting logging industry, a few decades ago. They had pretty much destroyed all the old growth forests in the United States outside Federal and State parks and nature reserves.

Yet the propaganda from the logging industry was that lumberjacks were being put out of business because of environmental activism and government regulations.

I guess it’s human nature to find a scapegoat, to find someone to blame when anything bad happens, even when the actual cause is obvious to anyone who is willing to actually look at the facts. Even when it comes to logging and the inevitable result of the loggers’ own actions — depleting the resources their industry depended on — they chose to blame others rather than face reality.

Natural gas and the corporate tax law that gives them tremendous tax breaks to make it profitable.

Clean coal isn’t impossible, it’s just foolishly expensive. Read up on the Kemper Project and it’s ~$5B in project overruns. Will it ever make sense to pursue…probably not unless we have some major technological breakthroughs or significant shift in energy/commodities.

Sure, “clean coal” is possible in an engineering sense, just like using compressed hydrogen to fuel “fool cell” cars is possible in an engineering sense.

But neither are practical in an economic sense. Both are just too expensive to compete with more practical alternatives. “Clean coal” can’t compete against nuclear power, nor solar power coupled with grid-scale energy storage using batteries.

CCS is not that crazy, cost estimates vary but generally it is considered to be somewhere around $40-50 per ton CO2 for the power industry. That is not that much, about 4 c/kWh on the power but the industry won’t do it. It’s sad because it has been possible for years. Compare that to battery storage, if you need to store 80% of your power then it is going to cost you somewhere around 16-20 c/kWh on top of whatever you pay for your power. That scenario is pretty much what you are talking about if you go to solar + storage at a domestic property. Now I am comparing apples with oranges as that is at today’s battery prices vs an estimate for CCS but battery costs won’t get to the point where storage only adds 4 c/kWh anytime soon, if ever. As for if we will ever see CCS become a reality, in my opinion, probably not. The ammonia industry, natural gas industry, oil refining industry and cement industry all produce high purity streams of CO2 that they simply vent to the atmosphere. The day any one of those industries start storing their CO2 will be the day… Read more »

“…but battery costs won’t get to the point where storage only adds 4 c/kWh anytime soon, if ever.”

You’re talking about home solar + battery installations. I’m talking about utilities doing grid-scale installations. Presumably there’s some benefit with economy of scale, there.

To a large degree, you are correct to say that near term, batteries are still too expensive for grid-scale energy storage. But we’re already seeing installations for peak shaving, so clearly that is affordable now. As battery prices come down, we should see a gradual increase in usage of battery storage, to the point that it really can store the hours of grid power needed for overnight storage of electricity generated by solar power.

Battery prices are going in one direction: down. The question isn’t whether or not grid-scale energy storage in batteries will eventually be cost-competitive; the questions are what percentage of grid power will be stored in batteries, and how soon.

Note that a “battery” doesn’t necessarily mean the current tech using banks of small li-ion battery cells. In fact, flow batteries may be far better for storage of grid power.

There are certainly applications for batteries on the grid and we will see a massive increase in the amount of stationary storage coming into the grid in the future. In terms of utility scale applications check out this link: It is the market (wholesale) price on the Australian national grid. If you switch to the 5 min spot price you’ll see there are often situations where the price of electricity spikes either up or down. You can download the data and see that there is variation over the whole year. It is pretty tough to make money in the market. The problem is that there are often times when you could make money with a battery but that those times are often very short leading to really long payback times. Note that there are quite big differences between the different states Victoria, Queensland and NSW all have a lot of fossil fuel generation. Tasmania has a lot of hydro and South Australia has a lot of wind. They are all connected but not well enough connected for one state to completely power another. The inter connectors to South Australia and Tasmania are particularly weak with NSW and Vic being… Read more »

There are batteries out there that last a 10.000 cycels if you use them you can get below 4ct/kWh stored.

You need to use Lithium Titanat Batteries (LTO). Without much searching you can buy them here for example. The minimal Energy is 86,4Wh and they cost ~100€.

So the price per kWh is 1157€. That is not so much if you look at the cycles they can withstand.

20.000 cycles at 1C
50.000 cycles at 0.5C

Since the C rate only specifies the velocity by which they can charged, it has no influence at the energy stored over the lifetime which C rate you choose for your battery.

50.000 cycles means a price of 2,314 ct/kWh stored
20.000 cycles means a price of 5,785 ct/kWh stored

I would call that to be pretty close to 4 ct/kWh stored, don’t you think?

That is the cheapest I have seen LTO cells for. The question is why aren’t there thousands of these cells connected to the German grid? At a wholesale level there would certainly be times when you would get a difference between the cost of power well above 2-6 c/kWh premium paid to store the energy in these cells. If that was the true price of a cycle you would see these batteries everywhere but it isn’t. In addition to the cells, you need a shipping container to house them, a BMS, inverters, grid connection, fire suppression system, site preparation, construction of cells into packs, etc.. These are not massive costs but they do add up. There are also other subtle things about how this particular web page have presented their data, the discharge Voltage is 1.85V (not 2.4V) and it is unclear what the maximum capacity is that they then calculate the 80% DOD cycle on (i.e. is it 80% of 40 Ah or 36 Ah). You would have to heat and cool the battery depending on what time of year it is which would add a fairly significant parasitic load to your facility and have to factor in a… Read more »

Just checked some other prices and they really seem to be the cheapest around.

Yes, you have to add a BMW and packaging, which can double the price. But 4-5ct/kWh stored is still possible.

I think the biggest hindrance is that no one else has done it before and you can’t get real live expierence yet and that the need for more regulation power is not that big yet. PV and wind can go up to 60% of whole grid before you need more regulation power. In germany we are around 35%, so there is still a lot of room for renewables.

“Clean Coal”
NOx scrubbing – Check
SOx scrubbing – Check
Mercury scrubbing – Check
CO2 scrubbing – Nope. Notta.

Southern Company invented what we may as well treat as Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel”. Because there is no viable way to scrub CO2, they long ago claimed they’d be sequestering 65% of it from a tiny coal plant (Kemper). There were ~260mm of tax-credits, on just this one coal facility. The sequestering, of course, never happened.

In today’s US power market, it is either natural gas(&free CO2) or it needs subsidy.

Mr. Murray clean coal is a fraud. Your anger should be directed at natural gas not wind and solar. How about starting a solar farm on the contaminated mountain tops.

Hahahaha! Spot on!

Old man, old thinking.

I just wrote a paper on coal-fired power in India, and Murray and company are up a creek without a paddle. He and other companies bet the farm on the rise of coal in developing countries, but they didn’t bet on those countries making huge commitments to renewables. They lost big. Huge. India now imports almost no coal, just cancelled 4 new plants totaling 16GW, and current coal plants are running at 58% of capacity.

The awful irony here is that you’d think coal companies would be not only cheering electric car companies on, but investing in them, as those people are also buying your product.

James said:

“India now imports almost no coal, just cancelled 4 new plants totaling 16GW…”

What wonderful news! Hooray!
🙂 🙂 🙂

He lost a ton of money betting on metallurgical coal, and the bottom dropped out of that market too.

Not your brightest bulb.

If that’s true, that’s awesome!!

Developing countries don’t have the established nation-wide power grid like developed countries, and they have some very technologically remote areas. It makes more sense to go renewable since it’s scalable and local.

There’s a 30 billion dollar retraining fund for West Va coal miners. No such thing here in oil industry Alberta. However if I lose my job, I’ll happily look for work elsewhere, because I’ve had it with the fossil fuel industry, It’ll be a better world with solar etc, Let’s not forget to be human and understanding though for those families going thtough a hard time.

Agreed – I have heard of that fund, but where is the money coming from? Is it mostly gov’t funds? If it is, that’s OK in my book – it’s a good investment to retrain people for other jobs, even if they need to leave the state to find them.

1. Allowing coal industry to continue externalizing cost is a subsidy too

2. If we don’t get the orangutan president, this dirty industry will die off in just a few years

For a fraudulent company, I sure see a lot of their products on the roads these days. Starting to see X’s fairly regularly and multiple Model S per day on my normal commute route.

“You could close all the coal fired power stations in the USA and it wouldn’t affect the earths temperature one bit”

That’s the point, we like the earth at this temperature LEAVE THE THERMOSTAT ALONE!

Name calling doesn’t address the real problem of broken energy markets, and an unlevel playing field in the North American capitalist energy market system. This is a huge pay to play system, that has lobbyist influence, always upping the ante. Pointing fingers and suggesting legislative favoritism is not helping true competition, and the bottom line for the (you and me) consumer. Remember $147.00 per/ Barrel Oil this past decade?

The thing is he doesn’t count his tax advantaged rules, and of course he wants his pollution of lakes and streams to be free.

“However, of the $15 billion in total support, 72 percent went to wind and solar.”

“Musk’s “both go to zero” comment would indeed level the playing field, but for some reason, we don’t think the coal industry will accept Musk’s challenge.”


With wind & solar getting 72%, wouldn’t that be worse for them?

Well, you really have to play with the numbers to get a real honest comparison. Maybe the reason why solar and wind got such a higher percentage is that most new electricity capacity being installed these days is solar and wind. Pretty much zero new coal plants are being built. We are closing them down faster than we are building them.

And what do you count? Do you add in ‘carbon cost’ for climate change damage being done by coal-burning? Do you add in a health-damage cost for all the health damage being done by spewing mercury, lead, arsenic, etc. in the air? Do you add-in an acid rain cost for the acid rain caused by CO2? Do you add in a pollution cost due to coal dust and coal ash poisoning streams, rivers, lakes, etc.?

Coal is just nasty stuff from the extracting of it to the radioactive heavy-metal-laden toxic coal ash. We need to stop burning it.

He’s got a s*** ton of tax code laws that save him a fortune in every step of the coal-to-pollution process. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to bring that up.

However, wind and solar costs keep going down, while coal is a mature, if not senile, technology. Coal cannot withstand another blow like losing remaining subsidies and local tax deals, whether now, in 5 years, or in 10 years.

I guess what I’m saying is, Tesla receives little in comparison to coal, but solar & wind receive much more. So a level playing field between Tesla & coal would be OK, but I don’t think I want to abandon solar & wind subsidies at this point.

“Just as the government is supporting through the people’s taxes windmills and solar panels, they need to support the clean coal technology. … We need a level playing field.”

Oh shut up. There IS NO COMMERCIALLY VIABLE CLEAN COAL technology. Can you burn coal cleanly? Yes . . . but doing so costs far more than solar PV and wind turbines.

The government has put BILLIONS into the “clean coal” Kemper plant in Mississippi. It is nothing but a complete over-budget behind-schedule boondoggle. A failure.

“Thanks for making a case for us”? He made no “case” for anything. He made some unsupported and incorrect assertions, that’s about it.

Yeah, I’m in favor of SO2 scrubbers (98% reclamation), and Mercury scrubbers (90% reclamation) with decade or decades old technology, but I’m not in favor of so called ‘clean coal’ or so called ‘carbon capture arrangements’ simply for I’m of the view that Carbon-Dioxide, a Building-Block of life, isn’t deleterious at all. Rather like saying the a glass of water is bad for you. Of course if you are drowned by 10 million gallons of water, then its not so great at the time. The Carbon Dioxide issue is deliberately obscured by the same rationale. What made me suspicious initially was all the big loudmouth spokesman clammering for people to get on their bandwagon all were big oil company beneficiaries. Al Gore with Oxydental Petrolium, his mentor (Maurice Strong ? its been a while) with Dome Oil, and now George “Save the Planet” Soros is now the biggest coal owner in the world. Politically, I find it humorous that you can’t really accuse Hillary of Flip-Flopping; she believes both things SIMULTANEOUSLY. To her supporters , she is dead set against Fracking. But to her $300,000 per speech benefactors, per the Wikileaks releases this last weekend, she supposedly instituted gov’t programs… Read more »

I think so too.
But having Trump as a president wouldn’t be a coincidence, but a certainty.
Water being safe is not what people living on flooded land think about.
So Co² is a nutrient of plant, but too much anything is too much anyway.

But the fracking boom originally relied on special exemptions from environmental law created by the last Bush administration. Now it is far-right state attorneys general who are trying to overturn the designation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant by Obama’s EPA, which Clinton will surely try to preserve. That’s the best weapon we have right now. And Trump’s solution? Abolish the EPA entirely and silence the voice of environmental science in this one country of all the countries in the world.

It seems Trump is beholden to that huge oil and gas corporation known as the Russian Federation, for reasons not yet made available to the public.

Let just hope Hillary learn to master her visceral anti-Russian feelings and stop give the green light to her worst CIA warmongers, those that are brain locked in fighting the USSR, although it has been gone for a quarter century, otherwise having a better environment wont help much if it is to wage nuclear war the next day. If not Hillary, perhaps Bill still has some balance and influence. That’s my worst fear with Hillary, especially in Belgium, a usual battlefield.

Bill your statement: “…but I’m not in favor of so called ‘clean coal’ or so called ‘carbon capture arrangements’ simply for I’m of the view that Carbon-Dioxide, a Building-Block of life, isn’t deleterious at all.”
identifies you as a Climate Denier, where only those with a vested interest in current fossil economics seek to trash that which supports global existence.
Find somewhere else to vent that crap.

Who died and made you King? The editor here has said he enjoys my comments, not that he necessarily agrees with this one.

No vested interest here, other than I’m on my 4th EV.

I’m staying, but if you are so insecure that you cannot tolerate an opposing viewpoint, perhaps instead of spitting fury at someone who doesn’t conform to your preceived ideas, perhaps you’d be happier walking. Haven’t heard any brilliant ideas out of you, (not) sorry to say.

Interesting how people cannot discuss issues with a level head, but must immediately attack the person. You won’t be missed by these eyes.

Sidenote to Bill: glad you seen that other comment about the community discussions, and how sometimes things go sideways (and profane, lol) and we lose chunks of good dialogue that might have followed behind it…so glad you have stuck around, (=

As you say (and we also subscribe to), we don’t all have to agree, but a good/civil two way conversation is always appreciated…and of course never moderated.

Thank you Jay. Actually, I do believe in ‘Man-Made Global Warming’ – but not the way everyone here does. If you are a bit interested, check out

Dane W. is a bit of an alarmist, but only a bit. He’s put much effort into his site and basically devoted more than a decade of his life to this. Also there are interesting back stories along the lines of recent movies, such as “Snowden”, and “Deepwater Horizon”


What is frightening with global warming is not so much that we went from 0.03 % carbon dioxide to 0.04 % in a century (a 33 % increase), with all the already known and forecast effects, but that we don’t know if what comes next will still be catastrophically linear or if at some point reach a threshold where it is not linear at all and even more catastrophic in a much shorter timeframe. We know about methane clathrates and permafrost as candidate disruptors but we have no clue if there aren’t any others still worse looming. What we do know is that Venus showed us global warming can get way more worse than what we usually though of. Perhaps not that worse but having something like boiling equatorial waters would perhaps not have a zero chance probability, leaving only the poles as livable regions at some time in the future.

We’re Toast!

I agree that there is a very dire situation. But I and a growing number of others contend its due to the fact we don’t have Blue Skies anymore, and one of the RESULTS of this is increased methane release. CO2 I’m not worried about at all, since it is a building block of life. The pollutants I’m concerned about cause Autism and Cancer, and Leukemia, all of which are becoming very big deals.

“0.03 to 0.04”.

The point needing reiteration here is that CO2 is a trace gas, a vitally important nutrient, and will forever remain a vanishingly small part of the atmosphere.

Many climatologists, (some of whom are authors of the UN study on ‘climate change’ – who then tried to disown the resultant conclusions since what they said was twisted) confirm water is by far the most important GreenHouseGas, (over 90% of the effect) and I haven’t seen many serious proposals to drain the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

For sake of argument, if all ‘artificial’ sources of carbon dioxide were totally shut down tomorrow, there would still be plenty of natural sources, from plants and animals and humans. So this would change the level of CO2 a bit, but not very much, since CO2 lags temperature changes, and has never led them in the past.

But one good volcano exploding anywhere on earth dwarfs the amount of artificial CO2 sources. And the earth has survived eruptions pretty well.

My last statement I’m sure is going to be challenged, since I’m not expert in the subject. So here is a bit of expert opinion: “…The newspaper’s sensationalizing aside, Iceland’s volcanic activity might — in rational minds — serve to draw attention to the natural variables (volcanoes, ocean currents, solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc. ) that dwarf the human impact on climate. Australian scientist Ian Plimer — geologist and volcano expert, professor of geology at the University of Adelaide, and professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne — is one of the many scientists who have tried to inject sensible consideration of the effect that volcanoes and earthquakes contribute to the production of atmospheric CO2. In a 2009 Op-Ed in The Australian entitled “Vitriolic climate in academic hothouse,” Dr. Plimer wrote: To demonise element number six in the periodic table is amusing. Why not promethium? Carbon dioxide is an odourless, colourless, harmless natural gas. It is plant food. Without carbon, there would be no life on Earth. The original source of atmospheric CO2 is volcanoes. The Earth’s early atmosphere had a thousand times the CO2 of today’s atmosphere. This CO2 was recycled through rocks, life and… Read more »

Mr Musk really should sue the buffoon.

Oh the irony here, based on all the comments above, when coal is an important component in the making of steel.

Very unfortunately though because Iron ore would be better transformed into Iron by reducing it with Hydrogen rather than coal. That would mean much less carbon dioxide if the Hydrogen is produced as a renewable. Making Iron is actually the place where Hydrogen would be of a good use. Going from Iron to steel takes some carbon addition but that is only a tiny fraction in comparison with bulk Iron ore reduction with coal. So for Iron and steel too, we don’t need coal. Coal is best where it belongs as a solid deeply buried in the ground.